NJ to 5 rounds?

[Sgt.K]

I tend to avoid conspiracy theory-ing, but:

Is it possible some Dem brain trust has actually done some research and realized that 5-round handgun magazines are more rare than unicorns holding winning lottery tickets while being struck by lightning, and therefore know that this limit essentially translates to a handgun ban, but can avoid calling it that because they're not actually banning the guns?

[mixednuts]

this is a sterling example of how "common sense" gun control literally translates to incremental infringement.

the legislators got what they wanted but of course that wasn't enough, they won't stop until we are speaking australian.

[father-of-five]

I still have a downloaded copy of that 5 round bill somewhere. I'm pretty sure that they just scratched out the "15" and wrote in 5, which created some contradictions with their list of so -called assault weapons on the definitions part of the statute.

[Iron Sights]

nj would probably outlaw matchlock muskets.

[Bang]

Existing allowed: 15
Proposed: 5
Compromise: 10
and you people say the PRNJ legislation is unreasonable. Shame!

[Wilderness 1864]

Existing allowed: 15
Proposed: 5
Compromise: 10
and you people say the PRNJ legislation is unreasonable. Shame!

Codey used to be my State Senator. He was just one of the many reasons I left NJ.

[Wilderness 1864]

nj would probably outlaw matchlock muskets.

Eventually. Probably go after them next session.

[GeneCC]

Eventually. Probably go after them next session.

Nahh... they'll make everyone holding a New Jersey Firearm Owner ID be forced to wear gold stars with the letter "G" on them on their clothing. They will also have to add the name "Bubba" or "Anne" to their middle names in order to make it clear to employers and authorities that they are carriers of the gun contagion.

Eventually they will probably be isolated in gun free zones, surrounded by barbed wire. In order to atone for their willingness to bear arms a few will be euthanized, a blissful death for useless eaters.

[God's Country]

nj would probably outlaw matchlock muskets.

Considering a rubber band propelled projectile is considered a firearm in NJ, I suspect they are already illegal.

[bamboomaster]

Here's how a 3 %er responded to a Connecticut gun registration program in 2014. A long read, but worth reading. While it may read to some as a manifesto of sorts, it clarifies the Constitutional red line that shouldn't be crossed by politicians. It was posted in the comment section of the link below related to NJ's new law:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...ation-campaign

The following letter was sent via email to members of the Connecticut State Police,
Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. There are 1,212 email
addresses on the list. There were 62 bounce-backs.

15 February 2014

To the men and women of the Connecticut State Police and the Department of Emergency
Services and Public Protection:

My name is Mike Vanderboegh. Few of you will know who I am, or even will have heard
of the Three Percent movement that I founded, though we have been denounced on the
national stage by that paragon of moral virtue, Bill Clinton. Three Percenters are
uncompromising firearm owners who have stated very plainly for years that we will
obey no further encroachments on our Second Amendment rights. Some of you, if you
read this carelessly, may feel that it is a threat. It is not. Three Percenters
also believe that to take the first shot in a conflict over principle is to surrender
the moral high ground to the enemy. We condemn so-called collateral damage and
terrorism such as that represented by the Oklahoma City Bombing and the Waco massacre.

We are very aware that if you seek to defeat evil it is vital not to become the evil
you claim to oppose. Thus, though this letter is certainly intended to deal with an
uncomfortable subject, it is not a threat to anyone. However, it is important for
everyone to understand that while we promise not to take the first shot over principle,
we make no such promise if attacked, whether by common criminals or by the designated
representatives of a criminal government grown arrogant and tyrannical and acting out
an unconstitutional agenda under color of law. If we have any model, it is that of the
Founding generation. The threat to public order and safety, unfortunately, comes from
the current leaders of your state government who unthinkingly determined to victimize
hitherto law-abiding citizens with a tyrannical law. They are the ones who first
promised violence on the part of the state if your citizens did not comply with their
unconstitutional diktat. Now, having made the threat (and placed the bet that you folks
of the Connecticut State Police will meekly and obediently carry it out) they can hardly
complain that others take them seriously and try by every means, including this letter,
to avoid conflict.

I apparently first came to your attention with this speech on the steps of your
state capitol on 20 April 2013. It was very well received by the audience but virtually
ignored by the lapdog press of your state. If I may, I'd like to quote some of the
more salient points of it that involve you.

"An unconstitutional law is void." It has no effect. So says American Jurisprudence,
the standard legal text. And that's been upheld by centuries of American law. An
unconstitutional law is VOID. Now that is certainly true. But the tricky part is
how do we make that point when the local, state and federal executive and legislative
branches as well as the courts are in the hands of the domestic enemies of the
Constitution. Everyone who is currently trying to take away your right to arms starts
out by saying "I support the 2nd Amendment." Let me tell you a home truth that we
know down in Alabama -- Barack Obama supports the 2nd Amendment just about as much
as Adolf Hitler appreciated Jewish culture, or Joseph Stalin believed in individual
liberty. Believe what politicians do, not what they say. Because the lie is the
attendant of every evil...

Before this year no one thought that other firearms and related items would ever
be banned -- but they were, they have been. No one thought that the authorities of
your state would pass laws making criminals out of the previously law-abiding --
but they did. If they catch you violating their unconstitutional laws, they will --
when they please -- send armed men to work their will upon you. And people --
innocent of any crime save the one these tyrants created -- will die resisting them.
You begin to see, perhaps, how you fit into this. YOU are the "armed men" that
Malloy and Company will send "to work their will" upon the previously law-abiding.
In other words, this law takes men and women who are your natural allies in support
of legitimate law enforcement and makes enemies of the state of them, and bully
boy political police of you. So you all have a very real stake in what happens next.

But let me continue:

The Founders knew how to answer such tyranny. When Captain John Parker -- one of the
three percent of American colonists who actively took the field against the King
during the Revolution -- mustered his Minutemen on Lexington Green, it was in a
demonstration of ARMED civil disobedience. . . The colonists knew what to do and
they did it, regardless of the risk -- regardless of all the King's ministers and
the King's soldiery. They defied the King. They resisted his edicts. They evaded
his laws and they smuggled. Lord above, did they smuggle.

Now we find ourselves in a similar situation. The new King Barack and his minions
have determined to disarm us. We must determine to resist them. No one wants a new
civil war (except, apparently, the anti-constitutional tyrants who passed these
laws and the media toadies who cheer them on) but one is staring us in the face.
Let me repeat that, a civil war is staring us in the face. To think otherwise is
to whistle past the graveyard of our own history. We must, if we wish to avoid
armed conflict, get this message across to the collectivists who have declared their
appetites for our liberty, our property and our lives -- WHEN DEMOCRACY TURNS TO
TYRANNY, THE ARMED CITIZEN STILL GETS TO VOTE.

Just like King George, such people will not care, nor modify their behavior, by
what you say, no matter how loudly or in what numbers you say it. They will only
pay attention to what you DO. So defy them. Resist their laws. Evade them.
Smuggle in what they command you not to have. Only by our ACTS will they be impressed.
Then, if they mean to have a civil war, they will at least have been informed of
the unintended consequences of their tyrannical actions. Again I say -- Defy.
Resist. Evade. Smuggle. If you wish to stay free and to pass down that freedom to
your children's children you can do no less than to become the lawbreakers that
they have unconstitutionally made of you. Accept that fact. Embrace it. And resolve
to be the very best, most successful lawbreakers you can be.

Well, I guess at least some of my audience that day took my message to heart.
As Connecticut newspapers have finally begun reporting -- "Untold Thousands Flout
Gun Registration Law" -- and national commentators are at last noticing, my advice
to defy, resist and evade this intolerable act is well on the way. The smuggling,
as modest as it is, I can assure is also happening. This law is not only dangerous
it is unenforceable by just about any standard you care to judge it by. Let's just
look at the numbers mentioned in the Courant story.

By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons
certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still
come in.

That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault
weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry,
including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything
close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of
unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.
And that means as of Jan. 1, Connecticut has very likely created tens of thousands
of newly minted criminals — perhaps 100,000 people, almost certainly at least
20,000 — who have broken no other laws. By owning unregistered guns defined as
assault weapons, all of them are committing Class D felonies.

"I honestly thought from my own standpoint that the vast majority would register,"
said Sen. Tony Guglielmo, R-Stafford, the ranking GOP senator on the legislature's
public safety committee. "If you pass laws that people have no respect for and they
don't follow them, then you have a real problem."

This blithering idiot of a state senator is, as I warned Mike Lawlor the other day,
extrapolating. It is a very dangerous thing, extrapolation, especially when you are
trying to predict the actions of an enemy you made yourself whom you barely recognize
let alone understand.

I told Lawlor:

You, you silly sod, are extrapolating from your own cowardice. Just because you
wouldn't risk death for your principles, doesn't mean there aren't folks who most
certainly will. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but folks who are willing
to die for their principles are most often willing to kill in righteous self-defense
of them as well. You may be ignorant of such people and their ways. You may think
that they are insane. But surely even you cannot be so clueless that, insane or not
from your point-of-view, such people DO exist and in numbers unknown. This is the
undiscovered country that you and your tyrannical ilk have blundered into, like
clueless kindergarteners gaily (no pun intended) tap-dancing in a well-marked mine
field. The Founders marked the mine field. Is it our fault or yours that you have
blithely ignored the warnings? If I were a Connecticut state policeman I would be
wondering if the orders of a possible KGB mole throwback were worth the terminal
inability to collect my pension. Of course, you may be thinking that you can hide
behind that "thin blue line." Bill Clinton's rules of engagement say otherwise.
The odds are, and it gives me no particular satisfaction to say it, is that someone
is going to get killed over your unconstitutional misadventures in Connecticut.
And if not Connecticut, then New York, or Maryland, or California or Colorado.
And once the civil war you all apparently seek is kicked off, it would not be --
it could not be -- confined to one state.

This is not a threat, of course. Not the personal, actionable threat that you may
claim. It ranks right along with -- no, that's wrong, IT IS EXACTLY LIKE -- an
ex-con meeting me in the street and pointing to my neighbor's house saying,
"Tonight I am going to break in there, kill that man, rape his wife and daughters
and steal everything that he is, has, or may become." I warn him, "If you try to
do that, he will kill you first. He may not look like much, but I know him to be
vigilant and perfectly capable of blowing your head off." That is not a threat
from me. It is simply good manners. Consider this letter in the same vein. I am
trying to save you from yourself.

For, like that common criminal, you have announced by your unconstitutional law
and your public statements in favor of its rigorous enforcement that you have a
tyrannical appetite for your neighbors' liberty, property and lives. It doesn't
take a crystal ball to see that this policy, if carried to your announced conclusion,
will not end well for anybody, but especially for you.

Now let's examine those numbers in the Courant story. You know the size of the
Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection. Wikipedia tells
us that "CSP currently has approximately 1,248 troopers, and is headquartered in
Middletown, Connecticut. It is responsible for protecting the Governor of
Connecticut, Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, and their families." There are
but 1,212 email addresses listed on the state website to which this email is going,
which presumably includes everyone including secretaries, receptionists, file clerks,
technicians, etc. Now, how many shooters for raid parties you may find among that one
thousand, two hundred and forty eight that Wikipedia cites, or whatever number will
be on the payroll when something stupid happens, only you know for sure. I'll let
you do the counting. They are daunting odds in any case, and as you will see, they
get more daunting as we go down this road that Malloy and Company have arranged for
you. (By the way, don't forget to subtract those on the Green Zone protective details,
for your political masters will certainly see their survival as your mission number one.)
So, how many folks would your superiors be interested in seeing you work their will upon?
And of these, how many will fight regardless of cost?

Let's assume that there are 100,000 non-compliant owners of military pattern
semi-automatic rifles in your state. I think it is a larger number but 100,000 has a
nice round ring to it. Let us then apply the rule of three percent to that number --
not to the entire population of your state, not even to the number of firearm owners,
but just to that much smaller demonstrated number of resistors. That leaves you with
at least 3,000 men and women who will shoot you if you try to enforce this intolerable
act upon them. Of course you will have to come prepared to shoot them. That's a given.
They know this. So please understand: THEY. WILL. SHOOT. YOU. (In what they believe
is righteous self defense.) Now, if any of them follow Bill Clinton's rules of
engagement and utilize the principles of 4th Generation Warfare, after the first shots
are fired by your raid parties, they will not be home when you come to call.
These people will be targeting, according to the 4GW that many of them learned while
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war makers who sent you. This gets back to
that "when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote."

One ballot, or bullet, at a time.

This is all hypothetical, of course, based upon the tyrants' appetites for these
hitherto law-abiding citizens' liberty, property and lives as well as upon your
own willingness to enforce their unconstitutional diktat. And here's where you
can do something about it. The first thing you have to realize is that the people
you will be targeting do not view you as the enemy. Indeed, you are NOT their enemy,
unless you choose to be one.

Again, an unconstitutional law is null and void. Of course you may if you like cling
to the slim fact that a single black-robed bandit has ruled the Intolerable Act as
constitutional in Shew vs. Malloy, but that will not matter to those three percent
of the resistors -- your fellow citizens -- whom you target. They no longer expect a
fair trial in your state in any case, which leaves them, if they wish to defend their
liberty, property and lives, only the recourse of an unfair firefight. So to cite
Shew vs. Malloy at the point of a state-issued firearm to such people is, well,
betting your life on a very slender reed.

Thus, my kindly advice to you, just as it was to Lawlor, is to not go down that
road. You are not the enemy of the people of Connecticut, not yet. The politicians
who jammed this law down the peoples' throats are plainly flummoxed by the resistance
it has engendered. In the absence of a definitive U.S. Supreme Court decision do
you really want to risk not being able to draw your pension over some politician's
insatiable appetite for power?

There are many ways you can refuse to get caught up in this. Passive resistance,
looking the other way, up to and including outright refusal to execute what is a
tyrannical law that a higher court may yet find unconstitutional and therefore null
and void. Do you really want to have to kill someone enforcing THAT? Just because
you were ordered to do so? After Nuremberg, that defense no longer obtains. (You
may say, "Well, I'm just a secretary, a clerk, you can't blame me for anything."
Kindly recall from Nuremberg one other lesson: raid parties cannot break down doors
unless someone like you prepares the list in advance. In fact, you have at your
keyboard and in your databases more raw, naked power than any kick-in-the-door
trooper. And with that power comes moral responsibility. Adolf Eichmann didn't
personally kill anyone. But he darn sure made up the lists and saw to it that trains
ran on time. When the first Connecticut citizen (or, God forbid, his family) is
killed as a result of your list-making, do you think that because you didn't pull
the trigger that gives you a moral pass?)

So I call on you all, in your own best interest and that of your state, to refuse
to enforce this unconstitutional law. There are a number of Three Percenters within
the Connecticut state government, especially its law enforcement arms. I know that
there have been many discussions around water-coolers and off state premises about
the dangers that this puts CT law enforcement officers in and what officers should
do if ordered to execute raids on the previously law-abiding.

You have it within your power to refuse to initiate hostilities in an American
civil war that would, by its very nature, be ghastly beyond belief and would unleash
hatreds and passions that would take generations to get over, if then.

Please, I beg you to understand, you are not the enemy, you are not an occupying
force -- unless you choose to violate the oath that each of you swore to preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies,
foreign and domestic. For their part, the men and women who will be targeted by
your raids took an identical oath. Can you think of anything more tragic than
brother killing brother over some politician's tyrannical appetite?

I can't. The future -- yours, mine, our children's, that of the citizens of
Connecticut and indeed of the entire country -- is in YOUR hands.

At the very least, by your refusal you can give the courts time to work before
proceeding into an unnecessary civil war against your own friends and neighbors
on the orders of a self-anointed elite who frankly don't give a **** about you,
your life, your future or that of your family. They wouldn't pass these laws if
they thought that they would have to risk the potential bullet that their actions
have put you in the path of. They count on you to take that bullet, in service of
their power and their lies. Fool them. Just say no to tyranny.

You are not the enemy. Don't act like one.

Sincerely,

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126